Talk:Terrorism
Merge from Eco-terrorism talk page None of this sounds familiar, nor is it cited, but I haven't marked for deletion becuase it is linked to. Anyone have any info on this? Jaz talk | novels 06:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC) Accuracy I'm basing this article off of information that was given in the historical database in the Enterprise episode In a Mirror Darkly, Part 2. It identified Col. Philip Green as an eco-terrorist, and stated that he began his activities in the year 2026. This information has been used in other articles dealing with Col.Green and World War 3. As far as my definition of eco-terriorism, that is based on contemporary accounts. I'll try to find the source I used and identify it on the page. :Well, please try to limit the article's information to what has been established on-screen. That said, because no episode or movie has ever given a clear description of what eco-terrorism is, a very brief definition of what the act is should be all we need, along with the context in which it was used in the episode in question. --From Andoria with Love 20:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC) ::Here is a restatement of some reasons why basing articles on a piece of hastily assembled background art is not a good move. The piece itself (which should be at least linked to in the article if not exhibited) has several issues. For example: :::*Col. Green led eco-terrorists? I thought he was famous since TOS - and even into ENT - for genocide. Not at all the same thing. :::*WWIII seems to equate to the Eugenics Wars, but about 30 years after the dates in both TOS and WOK. :::*The year of Cochrane's first FTL flight is not the same as established in "First Contact" and reaffirmed in . :::*This is very oddly written. An astronomical survey has as much historical weight (without mention of why) as 37 million killed? As nuclear war? More significance than First Contact, which isn't given a date at all, just a side reference? (Must have been a slow year in 2067 - although that is also the year of the *very* famous Friendship One launch which is not mentioned.) :::*And so on. Some stuff dead on, some at odds, some just plain odd. ::*Despite conflicts with other valid resources, both the production art AND the other references are valid resources for the construction of Trek Universe articles. BUT, if you include information from one (say, Green and eco-terrorists), you have to note the conflict with the others (TOS, ENT). No conflicts of any sort are noted in the article. ::*My commentary on the graphic - and why I don't trust it - is that it looks like something hastily assembled to serve as background. No chance it would be legible on screen. So I'd only use it as an ancillary piece of data, not the foundation for an article like this one. But if this is the sole source, the problems with the piece need to be detailed in the article itself. I would suggest the article then be either deleted, or reduced to a short definition of eco-terrorism (e.g., "terrorism engaged in for reasons primarily stated as being related to ecological issues") with the Green stuff in background. Thoughts? Aholland 18:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC) ::And something else to throw in the mix: the graphic - supposedly from 2267-ish states that there is a 70 year hostile period between the Klingons and the Federation beginning in 2233. Which means it is including as historical information events from about 30 years in the future. I just don't trust it. Aholland 19:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Merge I would suggest merging this with terrorism; eco-terrorism is just terrorism with the motivation in the name. 31dot (talk) 11:26, September 23, 2013 (UTC) :I agree. The content is short enough to be merged to its logical "parent", and "eco-terrorism" has never been an important enough plot point to make a separate article necessary. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 21:30, October 23, 2013 (UTC)